Bombay High CourtCP/43/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Rajesh Gajananrao Dattatraya v. Sourabh S/O Ramchandra Munghate, President Shri Saibaba Gramin Vikas Sanstha, Gadchiroli And Anothe

2016-07-05Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi2 pages

05.07.cp.43.16

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.43/2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4214/2014 (Shri Rajesh s/o Gajanan Dattatraya vs. Shri Sourabh s/o Rameshchandra Munghate) .............................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders .............................................................................................................................................. Mr. S.K.bhoyar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.B.Kalwaghe, Advocate for Respondent No.1 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A.NAIK & MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : 5th July, 2016 Heard.

By this Contempt Petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondent for wilful disobedience of the order, dated 19.12.2014, in Writ Petition No. 4214/2014. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that though this Court had directed the respondent to pay the arrears of salary as per the recommendations of the IVth Pay Commission along with annual increments within two months, the respondents had not paid the same.

Mr. N.B.Kalwaghe, the learned counsel for the respondent, refers to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent, along with the chart annexed thereto. It is stated that the entire arrears of salary have been paid to the petitioner and the regular salary is also paid till May 2016.

05.07.cp.43.16 Mr. S.K.Bhoyar, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that additional D.A. has not been paid to the petitioner for a certain period. We, however, do not find any direction in our order to pay the additional D.A.

In view of the statements made in the affidavit-in-reply, it would be necessary to dispose of the Contempt Petition. Hence, we dispose of the same, with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE sahare